Native AI

[rah]

I believe it's whoever owns the culture on the square determines who can work it. (just like civ IV, the engine that it is based on) If you go into the world builder and look at the territory tab you can see who holds the culture. When your's expands next to a native city, the native city can no longer work it.
Once your culture takes territory (which can irritate them) whether you work the square or not will not have any further impact on their attitude. (i believe)

 

[FaarmAnimal]

I believe it's whoever owns the culture on the square determines who can work it. (just like civ IV, the engine that it is based on) If you go into the world builder and look at the territory tab you can see who holds the culture. When your's expands next to a native city, the native city can no longer work it.
Once your culture takes territory (which can irritate them) whether you work the square or not will not have any further impact on their attitude. (i believe)

If that is the case, then I would support CptBadger's suggestion.

Maybe it could be done automatically with unworked tiles not affecting native relations.

 

[Hydrok9]

If that is the case, then I would support CptBadger's suggestion.

Maybe it could be done automatically with unworked tiles not affecting native relations.

If Col uses the same system as Civ4 then yes, only the civ who owns the tile via culture can work it.

It would be a great fix if that could be changed to allow native settlements to still work that land. Unless it is being worked by Euro (adding a significant diplo penalty) or bought out.
This was why I suggested Natives being able to spread culture, just so they can continue to use the land right beside their settlements, not necessarily so they can expand their territory (though I think it could make sense in the context of the game, given that nomadic peoples would use land far from their actual settlement). Having a minimum city border could work too. But if it could be changed so that natives could still work land that was culturally European, that would be the best system I think.

Real world examples of natives leaving their settlements to settle further away from Euros certainly do exist, I guess my issue is with the fact that the game's natives just give up their land with no real context as to why. If you're on good terms (pleased or above), and it's been a long enough period of time, maybe an event where you get some native converts (representing assimiliation)? If you're on bad terms, resettlement and have an additional diplomacy malus? Right now it seems very disconnected. In my current game the Caribs are annoyed with me, yet will give up one of their settlements if I ask (and then become cautious, as they have less border friction). Seems a little backwards that they should be angry that I've taken their land, but then give up a settlement to me for no payment and then be happier than they were before.

Sorry for any hostility on my part, I got really frustrated that after spending hours getting invested into this game that the natives still seemed to act so passively to everything!

To me the best part of Col is the choices you need to make as to the natives. Wiping them out is easy, but trying to coexist AND still trying to be the dominant Euro power is hard. I haven't felt the same level of reaction or hard decisions that are in original Col in this respect.

Also, how about an event where some of your colonists run away to "go native"

Thanks again

 

[rah]

but trying to coexist AND still trying to be the dominant Euro power is hard.

I don't think so. Be the French, choose the right founding fathers, sign defensive pacts, and spam some missionaries and don't attack them will keep them quite pleased with you. The other AI are usually not competent enough to challenge you. I usually play for domination wins so I have to keep the natives happy until it's 'TIME',

 

[Hydrok9]

I don't think so. Be the French, choose the right founding fathers, sign defensive pacts, and spam some missionaries and don't attack them will keep them quite pleased with you. The other AI are usually not competent enough to challenge you. I usually play for domination wins so I have to keep the natives happy until it's 'TIME',

Well yes. It SHOULD be hard. It was harder in the original. French nonwithstanding

 

[rah]

Taking the founding fathers instead of others and expending production on missionaries and watching for encroachment and not disturbing burial grounds is considerable effort and should get you something. Play the Spanish and ignore everything else and they get pissed pretty quick. (but if I'm playing the Spanish, that's the point)

 

[devolution]

European culture always "dominate" native culture, see CvPlot::calculateCulturalOwner(). This means that if an European settlement has at least one unit of culture on a plot, the plot will be assigned to the European regardless of the amount of native culture. This check is hard-coded but it should arguably be an XML parameter. I agree that it would be more interesting if Europeans had to compete for ownership with the native culture. This should also slow down the rate of anger since it would take longer for Europeans to assume control of plots. The natives lack culture producing buildings (but they do get the free plot culture, another mechanic that we've inherited from Civ4) which should be added if we really wanted to rework how native culture works.

 

[rah]

While I like the concept of competing for those squares, I think that would hurt the other European powers than the player. Their city placement is already a bit wonky but if they had to compete with Native culture, it would make it atrocious.

 

[Drunk-Monk]

There are plenty of interesting debates and ideas in this thread. Although I haven’t experienced the OPs problem of the Natives being completely passive. In one of my games the Inca managed to destroy every single Danish colony on a continent, and unless they are on good terms the natives do not abandon their land. Also the current native raid mechanic needs an overhaul as its possible for the Natives to destroy buildings and steal huge sums of gold from failed raids.

Although I do agree that the Natives need to be changed to be more active and to present a greater threat. It’s a misconception that with the arrival of Europeans the natives just faded away to irrelevance, the introduction of guns, writing, metal tools, “Old World” animals (especially horses) and intercontinental trade led to huge changes to the social structures and balance of powers among the Natives. This all led to greater conflict between the tribes and led to some tribes expanding their areas of influence and becoming serious threats to the colonists, for example the Comanche and Mapuche. Also the threat of the Europeans led to other tribes forming alliances and confederating, most notably the Iroquois, Seminole and Tecumseh's Confederacy. Others like the Cherokee and Chickasaw adopted European technology and social structures (writing, legal codes, plantation agriculture, formal schooling)

I think that this could be represented by the tribes being more active in forming alliances. Having the Natives actually change and gain from trade rather than remaining static. Having events where Natives gain Horses and Guns. Allowing the Natives to distribute resources internally and trade with other Natives. Allowing some Natives to build ships. Reintroducing from the original Col, hostile Natives siding with the King during war time.

Further, there ARE plenty of historical examples of tribes packing up and moving to escape European expansion. In other words, peacefully handing over their settlements. I think the game could use native AI that builds new settlements further away from Europeans as they lose ground

This is a really good idea, many of the tribes were semi-nomadic and moved extensively so having a tribe migrate or merge away from European influence would enhance game-play.

Also, how about an event where some of your colonists run away to "go native"

This is also a great suggestion and means there would be far more tension when your criminals, indentured servants and slaves run away from your Colonies.

The other AI are usually not competent enough to challenge you.

Totally agree about the lack of threats and challenge in the game as it currently stands (though a huge improvement on vanilla, especially the most recent version of WTP). I have made some earlier suggestions about improving the difficulty in another thread, I would be interested if anyone has some thoughts or comments : https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/questions-ideas-etc.638006/

 

[LordPer]

I'm sensing a LOT of hostility in this thread. I'm pretty sure we can debate the pros and cons of various features without being quite so touchy.

I would love to see native culture be a little more of a factor. Like the option to pay for the natural expansion of my colonies, and the option to respect their territory in my expansion. Because I'd absolutely allow a friendly tribe to keep their settlement thriving, as they can be a useful ally. But as far as active growth, by the age of discovery there was not as much of an expansion. Most tribes had their areas established.

Further, there ARE plenty of historical examples of tribes packing up and moving to escape European expansion. In other words, peacefully handing over their settlements. I think the game could use native AI that builds new settlements further away from Europeans as they lose ground

I also don't like seeing friendly tribes loose settlements due to my own cultural expansion. In a lot of cases it's land plots that my colonies can't even use. I would not mind if the natives simply ignored ownership of a tile as long as it is not in use by a colony or is occupied by hostile forces.

I have seen a case where natives actually started building new settlements. However this was in a RaR game and as I recall quite late in game like in 18'th century. I have not seen the natives building new settlements in a WtP game so far.

 

[Drunk-Monk]

I have seen a case where natives actually started building new settlements. However this was in a RaR game and as I recall quite late in game like in 18'th century. I have not seen the natives building new settlements in a WtP game so far.

I have, but I am curious as to what conditions need to be in place for the Natives to do so, as it occurs very rarely. In both cases the Natives had alot of room to expand.

But I agree that the cultural expansion mechanic needs to be revised, and more information needs to be made available to the player. I have experienced Natives having negative opinions of the player up to 60 +, but there doesn't seem to be a clear threshold as to what point they will start / stop raiding, stop trading / training. Does trading with them their favourite goods increase their opinion of you? What about them hosting your missionaries?

 

[FaarmAnimal]

Also the current native raid mechanic needs an overhaul as its possible for the Natives to destroy buildings and steal huge sums of gold from failed raids.

Definitely true.

Currently they seem to steal up to around half your treasury, which can be thousands. Clearly losses from raids needs to be addressed.

 

[rah]

A cap on the amount is all that is needed (and simple to code), the rest of the mechanics aren't that bad (so why put the effort in). Keep them happy and they won't raid. If you really want to stop them, you always have a choice on how to do it.

 

[Hydrok9]

There are plenty of interesting debates and ideas in this thread. Although I haven’t experienced the OPs problem of the Natives being completely passive. In one of my games the Inca managed to destroy every single Danish colony on a continent, and unless they are on good terms the natives do not abandon their land. Also the current native raid mechanic needs an overhaul as its possible for the Natives to destroy buildings and steal huge sums of gold from failed raids.

Although I do agree that the Natives need to be changed to be more active and to present a greater threat. It’s a misconception that with the arrival of Europeans the natives just faded away to irrelevance, the introduction of guns, writing, metal tools, “Old World” animals (especially horses) and intercontinental trade led to huge changes to the social structures and balance of powers among the Natives. This all led to greater conflict between the tribes and led to some tribes expanding their areas of influence and becoming serious threats to the colonists, for example the Comanche and Mapuche. Also the threat of the Europeans led to other tribes forming alliances and confederating, most notably the Iroquois, Seminole and Tecumseh's Confederacy. Others like the Cherokee and Chickasaw adopted European technology and social structures (writing, legal codes, plantation agriculture, formal schooling)

I think that this could be represented by the tribes being more active in forming alliances. Having the Natives actually change and gain from trade rather than remaining static. Having events where Natives gain Horses and Guns. Allowing the Natives to distribute resources internally and trade with other Natives. Allowing some Natives to build ships. Reintroducing from the original Col, hostile Natives siding with the King during war time.

This is very well said and the gist of my original post. I shouldn`t have been so hyperbolic in saying natives are 100% passive all the time (though I really had never seen them raid my settlements). But changes which make the natives more dynamic and active (as they were historically) would benefit the game a lot. Make the player adapt to the way the natives adapt to the Europeans. Right now they are very static, often to the point of becoming a non-issue. And that robs the game of a very challenging aspect, one which was essential to the history of real-life colonization!

I will disagree that the natives don't give up their land unless they're on good terms though. They give settlements away to me when annoyed. Ironically, they're annoyed because of border tension. So when the border tension is removed by way of giving up their settlement, they go from annoyed to cautious. So it seems like the natives don't value their settlements highly enough, especially since they don't relocate.

 

[FaarmAnimal]

A cap on the amount is all that is needed (and simple to code), the rest of the mechanics aren't that bad (so why put the effort in). Keep them happy and they won't raid. If you really want to stop them, you always have a choice on how to do it.

Simple to code, maybe, but it is far from ideal. What would be a suitable cap? and once your economy is up and running, and you have a decent amount in the treasury, you would be getting hit for the same amount every raid, and the loss of infrastructure is a bit high with the RNG. Personally I think a bit more nuance is required, rather than a cap.

Also, keeping them happy is not always an option. As I said previously, the negative relation value I had in my most recent play through with the closest natives was completely unrecoverable, despite my consistent good intentions towards them. The constant raids forced me into wiping them out due to the losses of both money, and infrastructure. This is fine with me, I actually like that you can't always keep them happy, but the raids do need tweaking beyond a simple cap.

 

[rah]

Well you found the choice if you can't keep them happy. As long as it's not one of the psychos if you go after the founding fathers, send missionaries, give them gifts, sign pacts, and trade with them, you can keep them happier. If not, just wipe them out. I like the possibility of constant raiding, since it forces you to make choices.

But then, I play way too many domination games so I'm just keeping them happy until they're no longer any use to me. The natives usually provide a bigger challenge then the other AIs. If you're going to spend effort modding the code, that's where I would focus.

 

[Drunk-Monk]

I would like to see more nuance in the affects of raids. When a player destroys a village they may gain a treasure, which needs to be protected etc. Whereas natives can have a raid fail and then thousands of gold are magically spirited away to their settlements (can the natives even make use of gold?) This is internally inconsistent to the rules of the game.

Therefore I would like to see more reasonable consequences, such as:
" A Native raid was successful, 100 sheep etc were stolen"
or "A Native raid was successful, they have destroyed a plantation"
or " A Native raid was unsuccessful, but a storehouse was destroyed, 80 Coats etc were lost".

Perhaps the underutilised happiness mechanic could also be used, with the towns populace or even the King being made unhappy by continual raids on settlements.

 

[rah]

The natives can use gold to buy guns and horses. (if someone will sell them to them) For fun I've sold guns to Monty when he's near someone else.